1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates generally to the field of controlling, tracking, and managing access to assets or asset control devices, such as keys at an auto dealership, by authorized users in a wide variety of sizes, locations, and types, including the ability to report and analyze the status and complete history of all inventoried assets at any time.
2. Background Art
Assets
Assets by definition have intrinsic value and in some cases require security of some kind. Some assets are themselves secured but their security can be compromised through access to a control device such as a key, remote, badge, etc. in which case the control devices themselves require security.
One example of assets requiring security is the vehicle inventory of a car or truck dealership or fleet operator. In this example, the keys and remotes for each vehicle are the control devices to be secured such that (a) only authorized users have access to them (to prevent theft and vehicle damage liabilities) and (b) each authorized user is made accountable for the vehicle keys he/she removes from the secure environment.
Another example of assets requiring security is the door keys of apartment, condominium, office, school, medical, and other buildings or groups of buildings. In this example, the building or complex maintains no master keys but keeps the management key copies in a secured environment which controls access to authorized users and records the accountability of each authorized user of each key to reduce liabilities for personal harm, theft, damage, etc.
Asset Management Without Security
Typically, managers in the field of this invention have a hundred or hundreds of assets or asset control devices to be managed. This given, unsecured methods have evolved around organization of the assets such that they can be readily located for use.
In the car dealership example, a common method has been “pegboards” or an array of hooks mounted on a wall where each asset tag has an assigned hook which allows a particular asset to be located by its stock or other code number. Even in cases where the pegboard is mounted inside a locked cabinet, the cabinet is generally unlocked and open during business hours. This method presents a number of problems and liabilities for the dealer. One problem is that there is usually no indication what employee has taken an asset that is not currently on the board. Another problem is that only honesty and consistent application of dealership policies by all employees allows this method to work—typically, assets are not properly returned to their assigned hooks and may not be returned in a timely manner since employees understand that they have no accountability. An important liability is that employees, customers, or other visitors in the dealership have easy access to vehicle keys without detection or accountability in order to steal a vehicle or use it for unauthorized purposes—legal precedent clearly assigns liability to the dealership when it has poor security or lax procedures for security and its vehicles used by unauthorized drivers become involved in personal or property damage accidents. Even in the absence of damage liability, vehicles may be damaged during their unauthorized use which causes repair costs to the dealer and possibly a lost sale if the damage is discovered in the process of conducting a prospect demonstration ride.
In the apartment or multi-family housing example, managers generally have a number of master keys which can unlock any apartment door and are assigned to specific managers, custodians, and maintenance contractors. Problems and liabilities arise because master keys can be (illegally) copied so there is no definitive way to know how many keys exist. Nor is there any accountability for each master key holder for his supervision of the key at all times and no way for management of the key holders to prove or disprove any use of the key in any apartment unit door by any master key holder. If management determines a breach of master key security, its only recourse is to re-key all apartment units and re-establish security but at a significant cost to management and with some irritation for tenants. More serious is the potential liability of tenants who may be injured during a break-in by a master key holder or who reports theft of possessions or damage to their apartment due to unauthorized entry, none of which can be aggressively disputed by management.
Secured Asset Management Without Accountability
As a result of the serious liability potential and significant costs of unsecured asset management, there have been and are still sold today in the market of this field systems or methods which provide some level of security for the assets but no accountability for even authorized users.
One such system requires badge and/or password identification of authorized users in order to electronically open a secure enclosure of assets—however, once opened, the system relies on the honesty and policy compliance of the users to properly record all of the assets they remove. With no way to prove perfect compliance among all of its users, asset managers limit only their liabilities related to casual or negligent theft but still bear the burden of proof in all other cases.
Another specific method still in use involves a locked box attached to the asset, possibly a vehicle in a car dealership or the door of a vacant apartment. While providing some security against casual theft, lock boxes once opened by an authorized user or broken into by an unauthorized user provide no accountability for the use of the secured key. In addition, this method usually results in the keys in lock boxes being attached to the asset they protect after business hours and in the least secure environments for theft.
Secured Asset Management with Accountability
There are also systems in which assets can be secured with accountability but with no application of low-frequency RFID technology. In prior mechanisms, technologies which include but are no limited to bar codes and contact-based semiconductors have been used with grids where the location of tags with bar codes and/or chips are identified by x-y coordinates. These currently existing mechanisms are inadequate or undesirable because of their high cost, limited density, restricted enclosure specifications, and/or user inefficiencies in locating tags by coordinates.
Known prior art includes U.S. Pat. No. 6,075,441 entitled “Inventoriable-Object Control and Tracking System,” the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
An object of this invention is to provide an improved asset management system that is more functional with more features than prior art systems.
Another object of this invention is to provide an improved asset management system that is more economical to manufacture with greater reliability than prior art systems.
These objects should be construed to be merely illustrative of some of the more prominent features and applications of the intended invention. Many other beneficial results can be obtained by applying the disclosed invention in a different manner or by modifying the invention within the scope of the disclosure. Accordingly, other objects and a more comprehensive understanding of the invention may be obtained by referring to the summary of the invention, and the detailed description of the preferred embodiment in addition to the scope of the invention defined by the claims taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.